MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391124877 · doi:10.3390/jrfm17020042

Knowledge Mapping to Understand Corporate Value: Literature Review and Bibliometrics

2024· article· en· W4391124877 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Baochan Li, Anan Pongtornkulpanich, Thitinan Chankoson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of risk and financial management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicCorporate Social Responsibility Reporting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBibliometricsValue (mathematics)Corporate governanceCorporate social responsibilityPolitical scienceManagementPublic relationsComputer scienceEconomicsLibrary science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to summarize the research results on corporate value published from 2000 to 2022; show the research overview, hot trends, and topic evolution of this research field; provide new ideas for the mining of the research frontiers of corporate value and a summary of the change rules of research hotspots; and describe prospects for the evolution direction and path of future research. Combining the bibliometric research method with a literature review, the research results on corporate value were analyzed quantitatively by querying the WOS database from 2000 to 2022; the analysis tool was CiteSpace. This study has five findings. First, researchers are paying increasing attention to the study of corporate value, and most of the research results are obtained by independent authors. Second, Chinese research institutions rank among the top three in publication volume. However, their research results have had little impact, with Univ Penn and Peking Univ having the most significant impact. Third, the top three keywords that scholars pay attention to are performance, impact, and corporate governance. Keyword burst analysis, CSR, value reliability, and sustainability are the latest research frontiers. Fourth, evolutionary trends are divided into three stages: research on the influencing factors of corporate value, research on the impact of corporate behavior on corporate value, and research on the evaluation and growth of corporate value. Fifth, knowledge domains include corporate value research methods, the factors influencing corporate value, and corporate behavior. The aims of this study are to provide a new perspective for researchers to study corporate value, provide new ideas for enterprise managers to manage corporate value, and achieve the sustainable development of corporate value. At the same time, the scientific knowledge graph method is applied in corporate value research, adding a new research path for corporate value.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Bibliometrics
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.1250.144
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.012
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of risk and financial managementSame topicCorporate Social Responsibility ReportingFrench-language works237,207